Natural Environment Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in the way that the joint management agreements and iwi participation agreements work together. There are a number of questions that I have about them in this part, but I’ll start with clause 236, on page 181. I hope the member in the chair will be able to flip back and forth on this, but this is sort of the centre of it, so I’ll start here.

The first question is, really: under clause 236, the formulation of joint management agreements is similar to the one in the Resource Management Act, but obviously the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements are very, very different—can an iwi enter into a joint management agreement with a local authority?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take my first call—actually, my first call on the Natural Environment Bill.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

I’ve joined the party.

💬 Grant McCallum: Where have you been?

I’ve been watching—I’ve been watching.

I have a question on clause 237A, on the iwi participation agreements and subclause (3) around the hapū. We know, obviously, that hapū vary in size across the motu. I look down to Canterbury and the mighty Ngāi Tūāhuriri, who have a hapū where their takiwā stretches, from the Hurunui down to the Ashburton River and inland to the Southern Alps.

When we look at the reorganisation that is going on, there is the potential that, actually, a unitary authority may completely sit within its takiwā by itself. So I do question why they have to sit alongside any agreement of an iwi authority and cannot, in their own right, have a participation agreement with a council.

I raise that question because we know, actually, that it’s the hapū that make iwi exist, and therefore we should actually be trying to create that mana to mana relationship from hapū to councils when, actually, there is only one hapū that sits with a council. It does concern me, that, actually, we have a clause in there that says, yep, hapū can be involved, but they have to join as party to an iwi participation agreement, so they are therefore excluded from having a direct relationship with the local authorities. I’m wondering whether you’d consider changing that to enable hapū to have the ability to have relationships that don’t sit alongside iwi authorities but that are, actually, directly with the local authorities instead.

The member raises a good point, and that is why the legislation provides, at clause 237A(3), that “Hapū may join as parties to an iwi participation agreement alongside the relevant … authorities.”

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on liability and, specifically, shared duties and how that translates into shared liability or not—this is clause 236, the joint management agreements. Under subclause (2), it says “A decision made under a joint management agreement has legal effect as a decision of a regional council.” I’m just wondering about where liability sits if anything under those agreements is challenged in law. Is it treated as a breach of duty by the regional council according to subclause (2)? If the management agreement itself says that liability will be shared because the duties are shared, then does that alter where liability sits? If the management agreement is silent as to whether the duty stands, does that mean that subclause (2) takes effect or that there is an automatic split so anyone raising a complaint could raise it against both? Thank you.